Author: Tony Werten
Date: 08:59:06 11/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2004 at 07:49:01, Richard Pijl wrote: >On November 11, 2004 at 02:51:31, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On November 10, 2004 at 22:27:03, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >>> 4. Rb1 Qc7 5. Ba4 (s=2) >>> 9 3.76 -1.64 1. Bc2 cxb4 2. axb4 a5 3. e4 Nc6 4. >>> bxa5 bxa5 5. Ra4 Qc7 >>> 9-> 7.25 -1.64 1. Bc2 cxb4 2. axb4 a5 3. e4 Nc6 4. >>> bxa5 bxa5 5. Ra4 Qc7 (s=3) >>> 10 10.03 -1.52 1. Bc2 cxb4 2. axb4 a5 3. bxa5 bxa5 >>> 4. Rg4 f6 5. Rxf4 exf4 6. gxf6 (s=2) >>> 10 25.95 -1.27 1. Nxe5 Qe8 2. Be4 cxb4 3. Nxf7 bxc3 >>> 4. Nh6+ Kg7 5. Bxc3+ Rf6 6. Bxf6+ Kf8 >>> 7. Bxb7 Qxe2# >>> 10-> 27.04 -1.27 1. Nxe5 Qe8 2. Be4 cxb4 3. Nxf7 bxc3 >>> 4. Nh6+ Kg7 5. Bxc3+ Rf6 6. Bxf6+ Kf8 >>> 7. Bxb7 Qxe2# >> >>If your mainline ends in a checkmate, with a -1.27 score, your biggest problem >>is not "How fast does it solve the position" > >Checkmate will always lead to a stand-pat choice in qsearch. Any move will get >your king taken, so better do nothing and return eval instead. :-) You've got to be joking. Ignoring checks in quiescence is already questionable, but ignoring checkmates is nonsens. Tony >Easily solved with check-evasions in qsearch, but of course that costs some >nodes. >Richard. >> >>Tony
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.